Team finds sea level rise in western tropical Pacific anthropogenic

Jul 20, 2014

A new study led by Old Dominion University and the University of Colorado Boulder indicates sea levels likely will continue to rise in the tropical Pacific Ocean off the coasts of the Philippines and northeastern Australia as humans continue to alter the climate.

The study authors combined past sea level data gathered from both satellite altimeters and traditional tide gauges as part of the study. The goal was to find out how much a naturally occurring climate phenomenon called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, influences sea rise patterns in the Pacific, said Assistant Professor Benjamin Hamlington of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., a former CU-Boulder postdoctoral researcher and lead study author.

The PDO is a temperature pattern in the Pacific Ocean akin to El Niño but which lasts roughly 20 to 30 years and contributes significantly to the decadal trends in regional and global sea level, said CU-Boulder Research Professor Robert Leben, a study co-author. The research team performed sea level reconstructions going back to 1950 by fitting patterns of satellite altimeter data to tide gauge data, then stripped away the effects of the PDO to better understand its influence on current sea level increases in the Pacific.

"The conventional wisdom has been that if the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was removed from the equation this sea level rise in parts of the Pacific would disappear," said Hamlington, who received his doctorate from CU-Boulder. "But we found that sea level rise off the coasts of the Philippines and northeastern Australia appear to be anthropogenic and would continue even without this oscillation."

A paper on the subject was published online in the July 20 issue of Nature Climate Change. Other co-authors on the study included CU-Boulder doctoral student Matthew Strassburg, CU-Boulder Associate Professor Weiqing Han, CU-Boulder Professor R. Steven Nerem and Seoul National University faculty member K.Y. Kim. The study was funded primarily by NASA and the National Science Foundation.

The team also used NASA climate models to assess sea level rise in the tropical Pacific that included data on the warming tropical Indian Ocean, which has been shown in previous studies to be caused by increases in greenhouse gases. The climate modeling portion of the new study also showed sea level rise near the Philippines and Australia is caused at least in part by anthropogenic, or human-caused, warming said Hamlington, who got his doctorate under Leben.

The research team estimated that areas of the ocean near the Philippines and northeast Australia are being raised by about 1 centimeter per year due to anthropogenic warming, which can increase the intensity of severe weather. "When water starts piling up there and typhoon-like storms are traveling over higher sea levels, it can be a bad situation," said Hamlington.

Although global sea level patterns are not geographically uniform—sea level rise in some areas correlate with sea level fall in other areas—the average current global sea level rise is roughly 3 millimeters per year. Some scientists are estimating global seas may rise by a meter or more by the end of the century as a result of greenhouse warming.

"When the current PDO switches from its warm phase to its cool phase sea levels on the western coast of North America likely will rise," said Leben of CU-Boulder's aerospace engineering sciences department. "I think the PDO has been suppressing sea level there for the past 20 or 30 years."

In a broader sense, the new study shows that scientists may be able to look at other regions of the world's oceans and extract the natural climate variability in order to measure human-caused effects, said Hamlington, a researcher at CU-Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. "This kind of research may start revealing patterns that we might not expect."

Most of the satellite altimeter data for the study came from NASA's Topex-Poseidon and Jason satellite series missions. Satellite altimetry measures sea level rise by bouncing radar pulses off the surface of the ocean at particular points and calculating the round-trip time it takes the pulse to return to the spacecraft said Leben, also a faculty member of CU-Boulder's Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, or CCAR.

A 2010 study led by CU-Boulder's Han published in Nature Geoscience concluded that greenhouse gases were responsible for rising seas in parts of the Indian Ocean. The changes are believed to be at least partially a result of the roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in the Indo-Pacific warm pool—an enormous, bathtub-shaped area stretching from the east coast of Africa to the International Date Line in the Pacific—during the past 50 years.

Related Stories

The 2011 La Niña was so strong that it caused global mean sea level to drop by 5 millimeters (0.2 inches), a new study shows. Since the early 1990s, sea level has been rising by about 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year, ...

Newly detected rising sea levels in parts of the Indian Ocean, including the coastlines of the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka, Sumatra and Java, appear to be at least partly a result of human-induced ...

A new study published in the international journal Nature Communications has revealed how Western Australia's sea levels will rise into the next century, according to a team of researchers including UWA's ...

Yosemite National Park is bracing for its driest year on record, with visitor bureaus downplaying the allure of the park's most famous waterfall and instead touting the park as a destination for hiking, bicycling and photography.

A new stream-based monitoring system recently discovered high levels of methane in a Pennsylvania stream near the site of a reported Marcellus shale gas well leak, according to researchers at Penn State and the U.S. Geological ...

A team led by Washington State University researchers has found that methane emissions from local natural gas distribution systems in cities and towns throughout the U.S. have decreased in the past 20 years ...

In the first-of-its-kind study of the environmental effects of hydropeaking, that is releasing water at hydropower dams to meet peak daily electricity demand, two University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers ...

All the Scientists like to get grants to go study AGW or ASLR somewhere far away. The Data right here at home doesn't support all those Scientific Theories. I want to see vitrification right here at home, not this payolla Science.Bill Price

I have asked this question many times of AGW deniers yet not one has any idea or intelligence to even touch on the issue. Instead there are claims (eg bill_price_357622) that scientists "All" go for grants and Bill especially says 'somewhere far away'. What a load of tripe etc

here is the question eg for antigoracle,

How is ADDING a known greenhouse gas such as CO2 (with known thermal properties) to the atmosphere NOT going to increase resistivity of heat flow and thus a retention of heat with increases in temperatures ?

ie.What property of CO2 makes it act contrary to laboratory evaluation of its thermal properties ?

Also I should ask, "Why are the vast bulk of AGW deniers so uneducated in any sort of Science - especially basic physics enabling them to confirm properties of materials" ?

The vast bulk of AGW deniers also focus of politics & propaganda, is the Science & Maths so difficult for them, are they lazy or lacking in average intelligence... ?

Not to worry. Toward the end of the century greenhouse gas heat gain will be replaced by waste heat as the main component of AGW.

"BlackLight has developed a modular, scalable system engineering design of an electric generator having a cell that is less than a cubic foot in volume, to generate up to ten million watts of electricity, enough to power ten thousand homes."http://www.blackl...wer_inc/

-Think of all the heat dumped in order to cool Arab mega cities, power hovering airports, and run floating CO2 scrubbers the size of Jamaica.

Sun Cell would appear to be the magic bullet that Musk and others would want. A truly disruptive technology. If it were true. Where is the working example? Until I see it, I will file it into the "Too Good to be True" file.

Lex Talonis - Here is a suggestion: you might want to try doing a little reading before calling people "fuckwits". Calling people that when you don't know what you are talking about makes you look a little like a jerk, Just sayin'.

Lex Talonis has not recalled or thought (from observation of day/night events) that the Earth actually rotates & at ~1000mph subsequently his ignorance of Science led to this stupidity

..since water is a liquid, it circulates and rotates around it's respective basins and around the globe....

It either rises "everywhere" - or it rises not at all.

Care to work out the forces upon the Oceans given this huge force due to Earth's rotation such that the equator will see by far the highest sea level rise - heard of Tuvalu ? Need a link or can u use google/wikipedia ?

Plus of course sea currents and also due to that big globe in the sky - the Moon ie Tidal forces !

Unfortunately Lex Talonis went on with his immense ignorance with

..Fuckwits.

So Lex Talonis, who should your last word apply to then when you ignore centrifugal force, local currents, upwellings & tidal forces - not to mention discharge lag ?

Yeah what gets up my arse about all of this, is that they say "This bit of the ocean will continue to rise." - since water is a liquid, it circulates and rotates around it's respective basins and around the globe....

It either rises "everywhere" - or it rises not at all.

So why do these idiot fucks describe it as a localised event?

"Ooooo 10K off shore from this island, and it's the same height as the rest of the ocean... 7 K and it's up one meter, 4 K offshore and it's 3 meters higher, and the island is 10 meters deep under a dome of risen ocean... and going away - it lowers back to the general level 10K down current of the island...."

Yeah what gets up my arse about all of this, is that they say "This bit of the ocean will continue to rise." - since water is a liquid, it circulates and rotates around it's respective basins and around the globe....

It either rises "everywhere" - or it rises not at all.

So why do these idiot fucks describe it as a localised event?

"Ooooo 10K off shore from this island, and it's the same height as the rest of the ocean... 7 K and it's up one meter, 4 K offshore and it's 3 meters higher, and the island is 10 meters deep under a dome of risen ocean... and going away - it lowers back to the general level 10K down current of the island...."

Fuckwits.

Lex: You are showing your ignorance of how the Earth's gravitational field works and you are also showing your ignorance of how a fluid reacts to changes in density while in a gravitational field. Let me give you one clear example. Continued

Continued for dimbulb Lex: For this example, I am going to produce a thought experiment that requires you to understand a concept, not a specific example of that concept. The concept is Archimedes' principle in that a volume of substances displaces the amount of the substance volume when submerged in a fluid that buoys that substance. If the substance is more dense than the fluid it sinks because the fluid cannot have enough mass in the volume displaced to float it. In like manner if a substance is less dense than the fluid it is immersed in it will float with the amount of volume needed to exactly balance the two masses (displace and substance) with the remainder above the fluid.

Now comes the hard part. You have to have an imagination. Imagine a large body (but with bounds) of warm water floating on top of colder water. It displaces an amount of the cold water needed to float that amount of warm water. Continued

Continued: In fact the blob of warm water will protrude above the mean surface of the cold water until they completely mix.

You can't see this in a cup of coffee. It is too small. If you try it the convective forces will quickly mix the hot and cold water and you will not see it. However, if you do the math you can see why the satellites see bulges and dips in the local surface of the oceans. These are actual measurements not you stunted mathematical ability. Look up geodesy, hydrography, and topography to try to understand the basic principles of local gravity and local temperature variation.

-Arent they? Theyll have a vid of todays demo on this channel presently.

And Im not the sort of person who would believe something isnt true just because it looks a little wierd. Thats the same sort of mental disconnect that the religious exhibit isnt it?

As for waste heat

"The waste heat generated by car engines, power plants, home furnaces and other fossil fuel-burning machinery plays an unappreciated role in influencing regional climates, new computer simulations suggest...

"The magnitude of their result is quite surprising," says Mark McCarthy, a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, England."

1) They do not disclose their "secret recipe." This is similar to the subterfuge with E-Cat. Their approach is to tell us to trust them and give them our money. Without knowing what their fuel is we can't tell how much energy it takes to produce it. We need that information to understand any energy balance.

2) They make the common mistake of assuming that if something it bright (luminous) (or for others very hot) then that must be able to be translated directly to high efficiency. That is not true. To really evaluate the effectiveness of their we would need to do both and energy analysis and an exergy analysis. The exergy analysis reflects how irreversible the process is.

None of that is possible with the paucity of information they make available. It looks like a scam to me.

Thank you for pointing out this section. However, note those are the cells and the claim is that water is the fuel. I assume I can get all of the secrets by buying the books he sells, but I'm not going down that rabbit hole. The reality is that he claims that quantum mechanics is not a good fit for reality and his theory is. He claims that he generates power by oscillating between the ground state of hydrogen and his made-up hydronium that is lower than the ground state. Really? You buy that?

The article states that - "Blacklight has put itself on the path to final validation, or failure, within the next couple years." Also that a prototype plant would be completed in NJ in 2009. How long you going to hold your breath? Of course that e-cat was supposed to be in production about 18 months ago too. How is that one coming along? Jeesh.

The thickness - or the average depth - would tend to equal out - all things considered.

Maybe eventually but, you didnt consider 'all things'.

If there were ZERO perturbation forces & over a long enough time frame for equilibrium to be reached there would be negligible changes

Find a deep pool, jump in, does the level equalise quickly ?

Maybe not.

It could be several minutes. During that period there will be local maxima & minima. Now extend this paradigm to a 'pool' the size of the Earth & which is subject to non-linear & occasionally discontinuous forces such as:-

Correct. Water IS the fuel. I didn't take the time to comb through the whole site. My point is they've been pretty forthcoming about what their materials are made of. More so than Bloom Energy for instance.

My question is why has it taken 20 years to get this far?

How is this a good idea?

According to my original post they are generating enormous amounts of power. Obviously they have some to waste.

But current flat panel cells are at about 15% yes? They are using the kind of cells found in the big concentrator plants which are more efficient.

production about 18 months ago too. How is that one coming

BLP apparently made enormous strides in only the last 6 months. They are now predicting a commercial product in months, not years. And Rossi is preparing a commercial installation right now for public display.

BLP apparently made enormous strides in only the last 6 months. They are now predicting a commercial product in months, not years. And Rossi is preparing a commercial installation right now for public display.

BLP was predicting a working product - in months - 6 years ago - see my May 2008 article above. Well over a year ago - you were promising us a working e-cat in just months. 6 years from now will you still be going on about this stuff? At what point will you stop? Please give us a date....

-They're apparently waiting on the validation report. I assume that mills will need to go through a similar validation process or insurers and govts won't allow these plants to be installed, at least not in this country. We'll have to see what happens.

Dr_toad

.. they are generating enormous amounts of power. Obviously they have some to waste.

No such thing as have some to waste - crap. Whether its BLP or Rossi & there were some basic physics credibility then companies like Siemens, GEC, ABB etc would be all over it...

Eg. Strategically - arrange a heat-exchange/turbine/alternator combo to feed directly into the grid & in a closed environment monitoring, with discipline energy sources in vs energy delivered to the grid, all appropriate signed off on etc.

This could have been done ages ago from as little output as 1Kw & up & very quickly.

The company budgets cater for such & the potential leverage would be enormous, those companies would also virtually immediately gain immense national support from their governments.

The fact this STILL hasn't happened after several years begs the question as to why as any of those companies would be losing significant advantage, what do they know that we don't ?

-Mills is claiming a million times the power density of internal combustion. There may be more efficient ways of converting this output to useful energy - they supposedly pursued MHD for quite a while - but as he says PV tech is off-the-shelf and they can have working units up and running very quickly.

The fact this STILL hasn't happened after blahblah

Mills addresses all your questions and more in the interview and in his earlier public demos. Just because you posit them here doesnt mean he hasnt already addressed them does it? It only means you havent looked.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

Perhaps Lex might not have so embarrassingly shot himself down in flames had he educated his primitive mind and watched this excellent and digestible lecture on sea level rise by a real Harvard professor, Jerry Mitrovica:http://www.youtub...Y-ZezK7wThe oceans absolutely do *not* rise "everywhere or not at all" like a bathtub.

Perhaps Lex might not have so embarrassingly shot himself down in flames had he educated his primitive mind and watched this excellent and digestible lecture on sea level rise by a real Harvard professor, Jerry Mitrovica:http://www.youtub...Y-ZezK7wThe oceans absolutely do *not* rise "everywhere or not at all" like a bathtub.

Fantastic lecture emphasizing gravitational effects. That makes sense since he works on solid earth and the oceans.

Let me point out one thing though. A bathtub is subject to the same effects, we just can't see them because they are so small. That is one of the things that fascinates me about this. For instance, if you could measure well enough (and we can't) and you lived near Mt. Hood, the water in your tub would tilt due to the local gravitational field. It would just tilt so little that any noise would mask it. Local gravitation!

However, Lex seems to love embarrassing himself with every comment he makes.

we found that sea level rise off the coasts of the Philippines and northeastern Australia appear to be anthropogenic

I wonder how they can tell humans caused the sea level rise? Factoring out the PDO doesn't tell you that, it simply shows sea level rising; something it's been doing for roughly 20,000 years since the last glacial maximum.

If it were accelerating it might be attributable to humans since population has grown dramatically over the last century, but it's not. Here's the Jason / Topex / Poseidon satellite measurements since 1993 which show no acceleration in sea level rise:

At the current rate of about 3 mm a year, global sea levels may rise another 10 inches (1/4 meter) by the end of the century, not 1 meter. Tide gauges measure the rate at about 2 mm a year. Whichever, it will take a long time and there is no evidence humans are the primary cause.

I wonder how they can tell humans caused the sea level rise? Factoring out the PDO doesn't tell you that, it simply shows sea level rising; something it's been doing for roughly 20,000 years since the last glacial maximum.

Completely embarrassing himself for not having looked at the video pointed out by ahaveland:

Perhaps Lex might not have so embarrassingly shot himself down in flames had he educated his primitive mind and watched this excellent and digestible lecture on sea level rise by a real Harvard professor, Jerry Mitrovica:http://www.youtub...Y-ZezK7wThe oceans absolutely do *not* rise "everywhere or not at all" like a bathtub.

"The main aspects were the presentation of the complete system design and a unit that demonstrates those elements of the fast ignition and regeneration, and optical distribution and photovoltaic conversion systems.

"Based on work of our engineering firms we are pushing to have a 100 kW electric,field testable power generator in 16 to 18 weeks."

Why are you relying on 6yo articles for your info? Why don't you take a little time and find out what's happening TODAY? A lot can happen in 6 years.

Really Otto - did you not understand the point? 6 years ago - BLP was claiming the imminent unveiling of their magic electricity machine. Today - still no magic electricity machine - but still claims of how incredible this machine is GOING to be. It is like the second coming of Christ - always right around the corner

"Based on work of our engineering firms we are pushing to have a 100 kW electric,field testable power generator in 16 to 18 weeks."

I am ready to have my nose rubbed in Mills victory. Please let us know when he is up and running with a system that is being evaluated. I will be happy to be proven wrong. However, I am sure this is just one more scam similar to E-Cat.

thermodynamics said "Completely embarrassing himself for not having looked at the video pointed out by ahaveland".

Firstly, Jerry Mitrovica never presents any evidence that HUMANS are the major cause of rising sea levels. What he does do is list straw man arguments and discredit them. He highlights 3 claims that he says skeptics make about sea level rise. The problem is that informed skeptics don't say those things. In fact, skeptics agree with much of what he says.

Now, just for perspective...

2 mm/yr (according to Mitrovica or 2.3 mm-tide gauges or 3.2 mm-satellite) is in fact really small. Do the math yourself and it's hard to get excited about sea level rise of about 6 to 10 inches a century. And that rate is indeed not anomalous; it's been about that for the last 100+ years. Will it slow down or accelerate? It's anyone's guess. It has been faster in the past--much faster, and yet humans had nothing to do with it.

Due to Milankovitch cycles, the Earth should be cooling, ice should be increasing, oceans contracting and sea levels should be falling, but they are not because of our 40% increase of CO₂.Sea levels rise because of melting land ice, expansion and our pumping out of aquifers.Land ice loss is accelerating - sea levels are increasing exponentially trying to reach equilibrium, and there are many positive feedbacks yet to increase that equilibrium and hence affect sea levels.Don't forget the multidecadal lag in the effect of CO₂ and methane too. There is more in the pipeline we cannot avert.We now have a Pliocene atmosphere on a Holocene, now "Anthropobscene" world.Last time that happened sea levels were 75 feet higher than now.As for your 'faster in the past' logical fallacy, a patient's measles record is of little relevance to their present terminal condition.

@TheGhostofOtto1923 re BLP & RossiI haven't been "following" them because when I have looked there was nothing compelling. Since you are a follower, please post direct links to their explanation which directly addresses the point I raise in my posting of ~15hrs ago - I will have a look and offer observation.

@askdad re sea level riseMaths helps immensely + measuring mass of lost glacial ice, it has to go somewhere.Mass of Greenland ice sheet dropping, has to go somewhereMass of Antarctic ice dropping, has to go somewhereSatellite measurements tend to be integrated, local maxima high enough to inundate, eg TuvaluIts not a difficult maths exercise form those trained to be able to link extra heat in the system retained by GHGs with melting ice & confirmed with decreasing salinity.

For those untrained in maths it is difficult to appreciate this interaction & complexity, so my best advice to you is look at a base physics/calculus course to clear up your cognitive loose ends...

Eg. Strategically - arrange a heat-exchange/turbine/alternator combo to feed directly into the grid & in a closed environment monitoring, with discipline energy sources in vs energy delivered to the grid, all appropriate signed off on etc.

This hydrino creation supposedly produces neither heat nor explosion in usable form and so isn't conducive to steam production and turbine use. High efficiency photovoltaics was a serendipitous development and only recently became available. This is explained in the links you didn't visit.

Eg. Strategically - arrange a heat-exchange/turbine/alternator combo to feed directly into the grid & in a closed environment monitoring, with discipline energy sources in vs energy delivered to the grid, all appropriate signed off on etc.

This hydrino creation supposedly produces neither heat nor explosion in usable form and so isn't conducive to steam production and turbine use. High efficiency photovoltaics was a serendipitous development and only recently became available. This is explained in the links you didn't visit.

Ghost, you glibly use the term: "High efficiency photovoltaics"

Can you please define that term?

How high is the efficiency?

I can't find that on their site.

Also, I cannot find the ratio of fuel energy value in to power out of the photovoltaics. Is it hiding there somewhere?

You are quoting from their own site. If you want to give us evidence that shows reality, please don't quote from a vendor's site. Do you really think they all tell the truth?

My god you still havent looked have you?

Manufacturers typically supply data sheets listing design and performance specs for their products so that buyers know what they are getting. Mills is using off-the-shelf solar cells. You didnt know these things did you?

Mills provided these manufacturer spec sheets as part of his presentation. Mills is not capable of altering manufacturers spec sheets without incurring lawsuits, and because he simply has no reason to. You understand this dont you?

re BLP & RossiI haven't been "following" them because when I have looked there was nothing compelling.

@MikeM@Thermoif i remember correctly, the site also published a paper about the Hydrino theory, calling another lower ground state to Hydrogen which is pushed by a simple blacklight catalyst... the paper is essentially a perpetual motion machine.

The paper describes something that is physically impossible. The likelihood of a successful machine utilizing the science behind that paper is nil.

I HAVE BEEN and I STILL AM skeptical and until I see a working prototype VALIDATED by science and physics, proving the hydrino/perpetual motion/whatever machine works as described and puts out more energy than puts in, I refuse to accept the site PR as proof of anything, especially the video's... lots of noise, no real proof of anything but a long boring talk and some loud POPS.

"..The SunCell™ plasma is the same temperature as the Sun emitting the same solar spectrum of light, but at extraordinary power equivalent to 50,000 times the Sun's intensity at the Earth's surface".

In my humble physics training this is essentially HEAT, given the exploitation of an obvious differential is MUCH easier & straightforward, with basic tech, to utilise/convert to motive force via classic easy steam turbines from cheap power generation equipment routinely available all over the world. ie. Why bother/waste PV (& waste time) at all !

Isnt this in complete contradiction to your claim ?

So TheGhostofOtto1923, who should I believe:-

You or the very Company you point to which reports rather differently ?

Humble doesnt mean the same thing as lacking. If you listen to the interview I posted, and read through the pdf I linked, Mills makes a point of stressing this very thing. Most of the output is LIGHT which is why theyre using photovoltaics.

Isnt this in complete contradiction to your claim ?

Nope. The presentation makes this clear. And its Mills claim not mine.

You or the very Company you point to which reports rather differently ?

You should believe what you hear in the interview and read in the presentation.

Go on mikey. Try facts instead of innuendo for a change. And please keep in mind, theyre not my facts but Mills, and they could prove to be wrong.

I HAVE BEEN and I STILL AM skeptical and until I see a working prototype VALIDATED by science and physics, proving the hydrino/perpetual motion/whatever

So what have we learned here? td has never heard of a data sheet. Mikey thinks heat and explosion are the same things as light. Do LEDs get real hot or explode mike?

Stumpy thinks using buzzwords like 'perpetual motion' makes him look clever. And sd would rather eat ice cream than read through a freeking pdf. Its got lots of graphs and vids with flashing lights and stuff, almost like ice cream. Sorry no cartoons though.

And we've learned that all you guys think that otto is here to spoon-feed you info so you can pretend that these are his ideas and not those of some guy from NJ. Well theyre not. Mills explains them very well and theres no need to try to paraphrase him here.

I think his ideas and demos are very interesting though and I think it would be very funny if they turn out to be true. You may be hearing me laughing soon or maybe not.

@TheGhostofOtto1923From your physics training you must know that incident light results in heating of the surface shone upon. The web site claims 50,000 times that of sunlight - if correct then PV is not necessary at all.

Have you never heard of solar furnaces collecting sunlight to heat water & oil etc to thus extract energy & at conversion efficiencies greater than PV ?

You are misled by LEDs, have low light output hence negligible incident heating.

You TheGhostofOtto1923, seem to be saying I should only listen to off the cuff glib interviews ignoring that which they have written on their website which presumably is; considered, checked & verified before publication & which they should take full responsibility for ?

Will you therefore tell the company their interviews are more credible than their published reports & urge them to delete the reports ?

You do have qualifications in physics don't you TheGhostofOtto1923, or are you ignorant & this easily led by vague tech babble ?

From your physics training you must know that incident light results in heating of the surface shone upon. The web site claims 50,000 times that of sunlight - if correct then PV is not necessary at all

And you might suspect that mills would address such an obvious puzzle. And he does. Instead of guessing and pretending to know what you are talking about, why don't you 1) listen to the interview and 2) read through the PDF?

You do have qualifications in physics don't you TheGhostofOtto1923, or are you ignorant & this easily led by vague tech babble

I have substantial qualifications in listening to interviews and reading PDFs. You have yet to demonstrate such qualifications.

Will you therefore tell the company their interviews are more credible than their published reports & urge them to delete the reports ?

You haven't presented any evidence that any reports are out of date, only that you refuse to read them.

You TheGhostofOtto1923, seem to be saying I should only listen to off the cuff glib interviews

How would you know they're off the cuff and/or glib? You haven't listened to them. You're comments in contrast are obviously off the cuff and glib because they are adequately addressed by mills in his interview and his presentation.

I read recently read, right here on physorg, where physicists were generating very powerful but extremely short bursts of light. These bursts contained more energy than the entire generating capacity of the US. I think mills explanation is along those lines.

This doesn't mean its TRUE you understand, only that you don't know all the physics you need to know to be postulating so glibly. By the way has your plasma tv blown up lately?

..extraordinary power equivalent to 50,000 times the Sun's intensity at the Earth's surface

But, you hand wave it away implying its not correct & shift to referring to some interview on another link.

Jul 21, 2nd link, youtubeMany vids, looked at the earliest to assess a foundation.Claims validation of a 50KW system but doesnt !Instead it talks of an unknown chemical reaction producing heat but, NO determination of chemical potential energy of a starting material.

Last link of ~2hrs ago, 1st report by W.H.Weinberg.Only shows experimental observations & again NO determination of chemical potential energy of a starting material.

Please TheGhostofOtto1923 instead of links with negligible & unclear validation & as you have a wide reading of all BLP media publications.

Please instead efficiently link us DIRECTLY to the best TOP 3 Actual Validation Experiments which are the MOST compelling ?

Please instead efficiently link us DIRECTLY to the best TOP 3 Actual Validation Experiments which are the MOST compelling ?

Again mike the invalid wants spoon-feeding. Im SORRY mikey but youll have to feed yourself. I cant excerpt from a pdf of a sound file, which is where all the info is. I think even hawking can access this stuff.

Its also clear that you know nothing about it and so need to start from the beginning and review all of it in order to understand what mills is saying.

negligible & unclear validation

What makes it 'negligible' and unclear? It doesnt appear to be 'negligible' and/or unclear to me. Maybe you should actually read it this time.

you hand wave it away implying its not correct

No, I think I implied that you havent read mills explanation for how this much power can be produced in such a small volume. And Im NOT going to try to paraphrase him or translate it into some form other than how he presents it. WHY SHOULD I?

If you think one of them does then please have the courtesy to point to it

"BlackLight's game-changing energy device that has water (H2O) as its only fuel input from which it produces 100 billion watts per liter of energetic plasma by forming a more stable state of the hydrogen atom has been validated by academic experts. The findings from three programs are presented in validation reports of our plasma-producing SunCell. The validators confirmed the SunCell performance"http://www.blackl...reports/

-Now, which form of validation do you think they are referring to, and why isnt this form acceptable to you?

NOT a validation report, only vague observation of what Weinberg saw, without equipment/procedure qualification. Major problem is the potential chemical energy of the source material missing, overall it's amateurish/dumb & therefore not credible !

For trained engineer, physicist or chemist it raises major concerns because CuO in an Al cup will react as Al will reduce the Cu as Al burns, minor variation of this:-http://en.wikiped...Thermitewith CuO instead of Iron oxide.

NOTHING to validate in any way output energy is related to ignition energy or an idea re a 'hydrino'. It obviously releases the source's potential chemical energy. The only conclusion one can reach with this is it cannot in any way be a credible validation at all !

They could EASILY have done better but, failed to ie By replacing the water, didnt, therefore a complete fail !

NOT a validation report, only vague observation of what Weinberg saw, without equipment/procedure qualification. Major problem is the potential chemical energy of the source material missing, overall it's amateurish/dumb

According to you. But according to the dozens of professors, scientists, and engrs listed, it is validation.

For trained engineer, physicist or chemist

But there are such people listed who included their CVs and an endorsed report. People from Cal Tech, Auburn, and MIT for instance.

And you are who again? Some guy who doesnt know that a reaction can produce the majority of its energy as light?

The only conclusion one can reach

One that is who thinks that the best way of capturing light energy is with steam turbines? Or who doesnt understand relative efficiency of different forms of power production?

Sorry mike the more you talk the worse you sound. I dont think you have demonstrated an adequate ability to judge what validation is.

Ghost: Give it up. Blacklight power is just another scam like e-cat. The fact that you cannot see that says a lot about you. I had an Uncle who insisted in investing in the on-going "colloidal gold particle" scam where "geologists" insist there is gold in rock that cannot be detected by ordinary assay means but they have the secret formula to extract it and they only needed a few thousand more and a little more time. My uncle died a lot poorer.

The fact that you cling to this unsubstantiated theory says you just don't have a working knowledge of quantum mechanics. You should be able to understand why this company had their major patent revoked and why they could not patent in the UK.

This is just pseudoscience and it is unfortunate that you can't recognize that.

@ottoactually, it is not just me. I sent a copy to Mr. Thompson as well as another physicist and they pretty much say the same thing. Don't forget Group Director Esther Kepplinger of the USPTO... there is also this: http://jiplp.oxfo.../6/6/374then there is this

A 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) due to contradictions with known physics laws and other concerns about the viability of the described processes

So my use of the words comes verified and supported by a study and physics knowledge that apparently you failed to research or consider

you guys think that otto is here to spoon-feed you info

I've learned that even you screw up royally, and if you believe blacklight, then FINE... every CON needs a sucker to follow them

But there are such people listed who included their CVs and an endorsed report. People from Cal Tech, Auburn, and MIT for instance.

@ottoand even some of those schools/org's had people who fell in for the cold fusion as well...

IMHO - from what I have read... I do not believe it.

and like I said before, until there is a working prototype and functional power producing cheap energy generator as promised, I will stay skeptical. I will also note that the skeptics that I talked to (some who have supported this BLP) all were incredibly shy about talking to anyone regarding the specifics... this sets off my alarm bells(sometimes a scam works best when validated by perceived authorities)

regardless of your above need to believe in BLP and arguments for it, until there is PROOF and until there is a WORKING MECH. then it is not worth much more of my time.

They've been promising this for far too long for me to go all giddy each announcement like you, otto. I will wait

Its not just my opinion, its evidentiary fact FROM the report, Surely then you Must agree:-

1. Potential chemical energy of the source material is NOT accounted for.2. Weinberg confirms he ONLY observed, he did NOT take part in an Audit.3. It's KNOWN Aluminium reacts with Copper Oxides to produce:- "...brief bursts of high temperature" & that includes bright light.4. Reactants where NOT analysed afterwards5. Cycle was NOT repeated ie. 'fuel' was not reloaded with water.

Am I wrong ?

You have to ask yourself why would anyone do such a BAD job of "validation" by NOT doing/proving the very aspects which is the basis of their technology, it beggars belief such a flakey & RECENT report would be at the top of their list & especially so since Mills started in 1991, its now 2014 !

I never said that, the matter is complex & beyond your current understanding, attempting to explain for YOU.

1. Light at all wavelengths = energy2. When it impacts (nonreflective) it creates heat, it's how solar thermal collectors work.3, Current PV is designed for sunlight of energy ~1KW/m^2.4. IF you really do have light of 50,000 X sunlight, then it is logistically inefficient & might argue stupid to consider PV - UNLESS it is already viable at such HIGH flux.5. As for solar thermal collectors (proven) it is FAR more efficient to collect the heat & use it to run steam turbines.

Like Mills, you have shown ignorance of physics & logistics of power engineering.

NOTHING connects Mill's chemistry idea/maths of a "hydrino", now he sidetracks with PV,

copy to Mr. Thompson as well as another physicist and they pretty much say the same thing

"Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy."

-Mills reactor is supposedly recharged by water from the atmosphere, which is its source of energy. IT is NOT perPETUAL motion. If it's true. And if your mr Thompson says it is PM then he doesn't know anything about it either.

Blacklight power is just another scam like e-cat. The fact that you cannot see that says a lot about you

The fact that you're willing to dismiss something without knowing anything about it says a lot about you sir.

The fact that you cling to this unsubstantiated theory says you just don't have a working knowledge of quantum mechanics

Mills and his validators from cal tech, auburn, and mit have a greater 'working knowledge' of quantum mechanics than you and they say something interesting is going on here. I tend to agree. But then I've seen the presentation. You?

-Which only indicates that you STILL haven't listened to the interview and read through the presentation. Mills hydrate is recycled.

Am I wrong?

Of course you're wrong. If the energy from a tokamak was released totally as thermalized photons then the containment vessel would melt. But the useful energy is in the form of fast neutrons. Just one more example of how you're wrong.

As I recall mills PV cells are expected to heat to 600 degrees, well within their design parameters.

I will say it again. You don't know enough physics to criticize mills. He answers your very rudimentary objections in the links I provided. Are you afraid to learn something new?

Its not just my opinion, its evidentiary fact FROM the report, Surely then you Must agree:-

-And from your link:

"To summarize, in all cases excess energy was produced, ranging from 49% to 216%. I recommend that additional work be done to tighten this range, but most of all I recommend that a prototype device be constructed to prove that power can be extracted from this new solid fuel and that this prototype be a reliable and scalable means of electricity generation."

1. Potential chemical energy of the source material is NOT accounted for.2. Weinberg confirms he ONLY observed, he did NOT take part in an Audit.3. It's KNOWN Aluminium reacts with Copper Oxides to produce:-"...brief bursts of high temperature" & that includes bright light.4. Reactants where NOT analysed afterwards5. Cycle was NOT repeated ie. 'fuel' was not reloaded with water.

You should know a CV is not proof re a brief for the report & has no representation re any sort of audit - none was performed. Weinberg was obviously given a NARROW brief to act as an observer nothing more when it COULD have been far more evidentiary.

Weinberg's comment re excess energy is only in reference to the ignition see point 1. above

.... indicates that you STILL haven't listened to the interview and read through the presentation. Mills hydrate is recycled.

Although I have listened to the interview - its NOT a validation report now is it, only a claim. It even claims the hydrino is dark matter, We know dark matter mass hasnt been measured but, Mills offers no experiment to measure mass before & after his reaction to show any hydrino mass disappears !

As I mentioned, I am focusing on the report as step 1, he did NOT recycle now did he.

So tell me where I am wrong, make it good this time, stay on topic & take one step at a time.

I sympathise with your emotional attachment & hope like hell you haven't put money into it !

As I said before, Mill's chemical reaction is akin to Thermite which is real.

To suggest Mill's chemical reaction is real re hydrinos is totally untestable & since 1991 is STiLL unproven DESPITE any validation.

As I recall mills PV cells are expected to heat to 600 degrees, well within their design parameters.

Blimey, that hot, so why bother with unproven PV - if that hot then even more reason to use steam turbines & use cheap tried & tested turbine -> alternator power conversion ?

Do you not see it TheGhostofOtto1923, first he states he has to use PV then he says it gets hot (doh), in my book and at a claimed 50,000 times more than sunlight it Must be a total waste of time to do anything other than the tried & true methods of power generation such as a drop in turn-key plant from ABB to convert heat to AC power.

Instead, Mills goes off on a tangent doubtless asking for money to now develop high temperature PV, can you not see, its not smart ?

Just plug in the steam turbines from ABB, prove the system works through proper "end to end" audited validation reports & get on with the job of making them !

@ottoyep. read that too. did you see the link? it was a study done on your perpetual motion machineAND what the hydralino paper suggests is that you can put hydrogen into a lower ground state with x amount of energy but receive x^nth power energy out of it. this is BY DEFINITION a perpetual motion machine: something that puts out more power than it receives and can perpetually run without input from other sources of energyI read the hydralino paper and the linked one I left... and you can goto blacklight on Wiki to find more corroborating evidence against your BLP

The fact that you're willing to dismiss something without knowing anything about it says a lot about you sir

I dismiss it based upon the hydralino paper and the studies done by physicists who had their patent pulled because it described a perpetual motion machine. http://jiplp.oxfo.../6/6/374

Mills and his validators from cal tech, auburn, and mit have a greater 'working knowledge' of quantum mechanics than you and they say something interesting is going on here. I tend to agree. But then I've seen the presentation. You?

@ottoI do not disagree with that... there IS something interesting going on... and I cannot wait to find out MORE ABOUT IT... in that regard my interest is still piqued, it is in regard to the claims of their patents, the hydralino papers and patents that I remain skeptical... and again... IF their machine is BASED UPON these papers and patents, and they show one thing that is physically impossible, then it is MY conclusion that there is EITHER:a scam going onORnew science that they have YET to accurately describe

why ACCURATELY describe? because their descriptions to date show a perpetual motion machine as well as some other physically impossible things that physics says "nope" to

And if your mr Thompson says it is PM then he doesn't know anything about it either.

@ottoand LASTLY... in regard to your comment here: MR. THOMPSON was provided with a paper DIRECTLY FROM BLP on the hydralino theory stuff!his conclusion was the SAME as the conclusion of every other physicist that I got replies from, as well as the physicist that I posted the article from who got the patent pulled .... it described a perpetual motion machine:IF you can send me an e-mail, I will GLADLY send you a copy of his reply verbatim with notes and research...

And if your mr Thompson says it is PM then he doesn't know anything about it either.

@ottonever mind... I will give some of his research links here

Mills published his claims here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011EPJD...64...65M

An editorial comment by the Editors in Chief of the European Journal of Physics points out that the science community does not widely accept the validity of the claims made, but they decided to allow publication as the most efficient way to generate a discussion.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011EPJD...64...63B

Criticisms of that paper were published in response here:Comment on "Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm"; Lawler & Goebel; The European Physical Journal D 66(1): id 29, January 2012

There has been no response from Mills et al. that I am aware of. The bottom line is that the claims made violate the known laws of atomic quantum mechanics, so either they are wrong or we need to modify those laws. So far the weight of judgement leans in the direction that they are wrong. BlackLight Power has yet to produce a device based on this alleged new physics. The 4 papers linked above are all open-access, meaning you can download them if you want to.

signed by Tim Thompson

I will await EITHER the device of the alleged new physics OR a working prototype... and the explanation.

And if your mr Thompson says it is PM then he doesn't know anything about it either.

@ottoso you can see that , regardless of your personal feelings towards Mr. Thompson, he is just passing on the empirical data collected from MANY other physicists as well as giving an opinion based upon experience, hard work and knowledge.

IF there are salient arguments from BLP then I would suggest they produce them in a publication that is in a peer reviewed journal ... going to the site raises the red-flag of pseudoscience IMHO.

and quoting from their propaganda machine party line posts doesn't help. even IF there are some physicist who might agree with them.Until some explanation for their device for hydrino's is met, and the physics proven/agreed.etc... then I will maintain my position of skeptic and continue to await PROOF that is published somewhere other than just their site

Blimey, that hot, so why bother with unproven PV - if that hot then even more reason to use steam turbines & use cheap tried & tested turbine -> alternator power conversion ?

"Concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) technology uses optics such as lenses or curved mirrors to concentrate a large amount of sunlight onto a small area of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells to generate electricity.

This thread isnt about dark matter. Please try to stay focussed. The validators from cal tech, auburn, mit, and elsewhere were not validating his theories. Mills could be totally off-base about them and still could have stumbled upon a viable new form of energy.

this is BY DEFINITION a perpetual motion machine: something that puts out more power than it receives and can perpetually run without input from other sources of energy

I GAVE you the def of pm and this AINT it. Mills needs to add fuel to maintain the reaction, just as with any other power plant. Correct?

ALL power plants produce more energy than it takes to run them. Look up COP.

Again: fuel in; energy out. Perpetual motion machines dont need fuel. Sure the fractional electron state is hard to believe but net energy production is not, if thats what is happening.

1. Potential chemical energy of the source material is NOT accounted for.2. Weinberg confirms he ONLY observed, he did NOT take part in an Audit.3. It's KNOWN Aluminium reacts with Copper Oxides to produce:-"...brief bursts of high temperature" & that includes bright light.4. Reactants where NOT analysed afterwards5. Cycle was NOT repeated ie. 'fuel' was not reloaded with water.

When you understand the points we can move on to other so called reports, you don't have to refer to interviews, its is sensible to focus on these "independent" published reports.

If you want to arrive at the truth focus on the written reports one by one, not the interviews, you will then discover the reports have no audit grounding.

Perpetual motion machines dont need fuel. Sure the fractional electron state is hard to believe but net energy production is not, if thats what is happening

@ottoperpetual motion is: motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. This is impossible in practice because of friction and other sources of energy loss.

IF a plant creates more energy than it takes to produce it, then simply routing the excess energy back into the plant would fuel the machines to continue to produce (more and more) energy. this is impossible (and also considered perpetual motion)The amount of power/energy used to produce electricity via nuclear, coal etc is greater than the amount produced

IF Mills machine works per the hydrino paper & patents, then it creates MORE energy than what is used to produce the energy

Mills needs to add fuel to maintain the reaction

this I understand... but according to the papers, he gets more elec. out than fuel power in

@ottoalso, just like the last time we had this conversation...IF he creates a more efficient source for energy production that we can use, then I applaud his efforts. THAT is what it appears you are saying... He has created a more efficient means to produce energy... that is what SOME are claiming too

HOWEVER, again back to those publications and patents... STRICTLY by going over those patents withdrawn and the hydrino papers... then it is am impossible mechanism simply BECAUSE it would technically be more efficient than 100%, generating far more energy than even the fuel is capable of providing

(again, the term perpetual motion is used for this because if this were possible, then once you got the engine/generator started, the routing of excess energy BACK would perpetually run the machine and allow it to create ever greater amounts of energy)

(again, the term perpetual motion is used for this because if this were possible, then once you got the engine/generator started, the routing of excess energy BACK would perpetually run the machine and allow it to create ever greater amounts of energy)

But thats not how it works.

Again: fuel in; energy out. Perpetual motion machines dont need fuel.

READ the fucking PRESENTATION or stay STUPID.

so.. you are saying that all electrical power plants, engines and generators create MORE energy than is used to fuel them?

THIS IS YOUR STANCE? really?

Heeheee now THINK for a minute stumpy. Would it make any sense to have a power plant that required more energy to run it than it produced???????

All power plants have a COP greater than 1. This means they produce more energy than it takes to run them. More energy than it takes to run them. Oh wait - MORE ENERGY than it TAKES to RUN THEM.

The steam turbine is the most efficient steam engine and for this reason is universally used for electrical generation. Steam expansion in a turbine is nearly continuous, which makes a turbine comparable to a very large number of expansion stages. Steam fossil fuel power stations operating at the critical point have efficiencies in the low 40% range. Turbines produce direct rotary motion and are far more compact and weigh far less than reciprocating engines and can be controlled to within a very constant speed.

IOW- wasted energy/heat loss/friction/ is inefficient. it takes MORE energy to produce the powerthe energy that goes IN is GREATER OVERALL than the energy that it is capable of CREATING...

so now it is YOUR turn to "think for a minute" otto...efficiency greater than 100% is impossible. which is what YOU are preaching above.

I will leave you to your "new" physics and your generator!let me know when they come on line! I will toast you and your incredible knowledge

Potential energy is not related to the actual energy required to run a power plant vs how much is produced, which was your original objection. Mills reactor supposedly produces far more energy than it takes to run it; far more than internal combustion and even nuclear.

But if you stop adding fuel, in this case water, it stops. Just like your ford and just like a nuke plant. The hydrino doesnt FEED on itself. Mills is 'burning' conventional H2, extracting energy, and leaving 'ash' in the form of the hydrino. PERIOD.

uh, why are you guys arguing about BLP in the comments about W. Pacific sea level rise? Also, "hydrinos" are a silly concept - below ground state e-? lol, I think the guy watched too much SG-1 and thinks he found the "zero point module" or somethng...

The steam turbine is the most efficient steam engine and for this reason is universally used

Hmmm. Is the space station powered by steam?

for electrical generation

But mills found that the most efficient way of producing electricity from his reaction is by using high temp, high efficiency PV cells, which you didnt know existed. Why is this so hard for you to understand??

READ the fucking PRESENTATION or stay STUPID.

Also, "hydrinos" are a silly concept - below ground state e-? lol, I think the guy watched too much SG-1 and thinks he found the "zero point module" or somethng...

The steam turbine is the most efficient steam engine and for this reason is universally used

Hmmm. Is the space station powered by steam?

for electrical generation

But mills found that the most efficient way of producing electricity from his reaction is by using high temp, high efficiency PV cells, which you didnt know existed. Why is this so hard for you to understand??

READ the fucking PRESENTATION or stay STUPID.

Also, "hydrinos" are a silly concept - below ground state e-? lol, I think the guy watched too much SG-1 and thinks he found the "zero point module" or somethng...

Mate, I am sorry you didnt get a physics or maths education, it would have helped you manage your thoughts to understand fundamentals. I have raised specific questions in my posting re 1st so called validation report.

So far I have not seen where they are answered, they are not to be found on BLP website,especially these SPECIFIC questions re the 1st validation report:-

1. Potential chemical energy of the source material is NOT accounted for.2. Weinberg confirms he ONLY observed, he did NOT take part in an Audit.3. It's KNOWN Aluminium reacts with Copper Oxides to produce:-"...brief bursts of high temperature" & that includes bright light.4. Reactants where NOT analysed afterwards5. Cycle was NOT repeated ie. 'fuel' was not reloaded with water.

I have also viewed the most recent 'slides', nothing pertinent or direct :-(

Would you be so kind as to link me directly to the specific answers to my points raised above please ?

But mills found that the most efficient way of producing electricity from his reaction is by using high temp, high efficiency PV cells, which you didnt know existed. Why is this so hard for you to understand??

READ the fucking PRESENTATION or stay STUPID

because mills states its use is thru hydrino lower power states using his patent/hydrino theory so...

because mills states its use is thru hydrino lower power states using his patent/hydrino theory so..

You have no idea what mills states, thats obvious. Ash is at a lower power state than the original fuel correct? Hydrinos according to him are not useable although according to some, their electron position being closer to the nucleus would make them easier to fuse similar to muon-catalysis.

again... READ THE F*CKING REAL PHYSICS OR STAY STUPID

Sorry stump Im not trying to defend mills physics. Im only pointing out that you have no idea what it is. You want a description of it, visit his site. Or stay stupid.

Sorry stump Im not trying to defend mills physics. Im only pointing out that you have no idea what it is. You want a description of it, visit his site. Or stay stupid.

that's just it, otto... I DID visit the site. I read most of that 85 page document... I AM BASING my answers on the PHYSICS he claims on his site, his papers, his publications, his theory and what he has said...

a few months back we had a similar argument... THAT is when I started reading thru the site. Unless there has been a SERIOUSLY DRASTIC change of physics, postings etc since around Feb-Mar time frame (i kept some tabs), then I am basing MY ARGUMENTS on MILLS PUBLICATIONS and PAPERS, PATENT FILINGS and his WORK ON HIS PAGE.

you are mistaken: I DO know what he has stated... and I've talked about it to other physicists (in my class etc) to make sure I was right. I USED HIS OWN WORDS/SITE/LINKS to research.

YOU are the one who sent me to his site in Fab-mar! so... read the physics or stay stupid back at ya!

that was an EXAMPLE of your power station fallacy... how power stations produce far more energy than they consume...

So according to you the nuclear reactor in a sub is a perpetual motion machine because it produces more power than it takes to run the reactor itself. Is that right? Ahaahaaaa.

try Googling the following "energy losses and efficiency in nuclear power plants overall efficiency"when you learn a little about the PHYSICS... and how inefficient it is, then come back and argue. http://www.mpower...ency.htmmost nuclear plants use STEAM to generate electricity last time I checked... http://www.duke-e...-how.asp

I DID visit the site. I read most of that 85 page document... I AM BASING my answers on the PHYSICS he claims on his site,

So how come you didnt know that the hydrino itself is unusable? And how come you didnt know about high temp high efficiency solar cells and that mills is only now using them as opposed to MHD or some other form of conversion? And how come you didnt know WHY mills is using them? Etc.

No, you havent read the report or listened to the interview. So stay stupid.

most nuclear plants use STEAM to generate electricity last time I checked

Indeed they do. And it takes far less energy to RUN nuke plants than they PRODUCE. Or else it would take some far more efficient energy source to run them, which would be pretty stupid.

that was an EXAMPLE of your power station fallacy... how power stations produce far more energy than they consume...

So according to you the nuclear reactor in a sub is a perpetual motion machine because it produces more power than it takes to run the reactor itself. Is that right? Ahaahaaaa.

Wrong. the nuclear reactor consumes fuel and will not run indefinitely. Also, there is more energy bound up in methane/ethane (nat'l gas) than is released in combustion - nothing is 100% efficient. Perhaps the problem is that we're coming at this from a thermodynamics standpoint and you don't have the physical chemistry background to understand why BLP is not the real deal. Since the ground state is defined as the lowest energy state, by definition an electron cannot drop below the ground state, hence the ridicule for BLP's claim.

I never said it was not economical, nor cheap, nor anything else...BUTALL METHODS USED TO CREATE ELECTRICITY USE MORE ENERGY THAN THEY PRODUCEbleed off via inefficiency, heat, friction etc is all part of the energyTHIS IS Jr. High stuff here!

Wrong. the nuclear reactor consumes fuel and will not run indefinitely. Also, there is more energy bound up in methane/ethane (nat'l gas) than is released in combustion - nothing is 100% efficient. Perhaps the problem is that we're coming at this from a thermodynamics standpoint and you don't have the physical chemistry background to understand why BLP is not the real deal. Since the ground state is defined as the lowest energy state, by definition an electron cannot drop below the ground state, hence the ridicule for BLP's claim.

Thank you supamark23I've left him links so that he gets it... but he is not reading them, apparently. this is essentially what I've been saying, and what Thompson says above... and more...

and especially about power plants and efficiency... I think he is confusing economic efficiency with actual energy efficiency and thermodynamics...

Uh stump - he was refuting your idea of perpetual motion. OF COURSE a nuclear sub isn't perpetual motion. And neither is the hydrino reaction. It needs fuel to run.

I'm thinking maybe your problem is you're confusing this hydrino thing with rossis ecat. The ecat can provide its own reaction power. But even it will run out of fuel, in rossis case his mystery nickel powder, and needs to be recharged.

BTW the power it needs to RUN it is far less than it purportedly PRODUCES, just as with any power plant. It's COP is just a whole lot higher. The energy needed to run a nuke is far less than the energy it produces.

You do know what RUN means don't you? It doesn't mean waste which is what goes up a cooling tower. That's efficiency. It means the sum total of mining, processing, delivering, operating, and recycling/disposing.

physical chemistry background

Dude, I understand what the ground state is. I am not the one saying there is something lower, mills is. Are we clear on that?

Well I only recently became aware of his use of these. But if you knew about them why did you call them unproven?

Blimey, that hot, so why bother with unproven PV

-is what you said. What makes you think they are unproven?

ALL METHODS USED TO CREATE ELECTRICITY USE MORE ENERGY THAN THEY PRODUCE

I think you mean 'waste energy than they produce'. Best current efficiency is about 40% I think?

But waste energy is not operating energy. Mills and rossis reactors will both waste a great deal of energy. But they require far less energy to operate them than they produce. Supposedly. Rossi claims a COP of 6 which is 6x more energy produced than energy needed to operate.

His efficiency at converting that energy to useful form is the same as traditional power plants because he will use the same tech. But since he is producing 6x more energy, he gets that much more energy out. Supposedly. I think mills expects to get 40% net.

Perpetual energy machines in contrast claim to require NO energy to operate.

"A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source."

Mills energy source is the H2 in water. Without it his reaction stops. Rossis energy source is his mystery nickel powder. Without it LENR reactions don't take place.

Both reactions consume this fuel. It doesn't last forever. Both claim they can recharge and reuse them because the base materials are catalysts. The converter in your junker ford produces energy by converting waste hydrocarbons. Without them, it stops producing energy. Same with the ecat and the sun cell.

And yes, both claim outrageous physics unrelated to the norm. But both have produced some very convincing demos which in the end is what really counts. Planes were flying long before aeronautical engineering was established. You can say concrete ships are impossible while actually standing on one yes?

Nope-read the hydrino paper from Mills: http://www.blackl...22PM.pdfYOU are the one who sent me that paper Otto! YOU are the one who told me to do my homework back in FEB. I DID. THAT is ONE paper I am basing a lot of my argument on, as well as the pulling of the patents and the physics refute of said papers/patents etc

The energy needed to run a nuke is far less than the energy it produces.

@ottowhen determining how efficient a generator, motor etc is ALL energy is important. now, I amy be semantically incorrect, however the basic issue is (in your terms): all means of generating energy waste more energy than is put into it, therefore you can logically say that more energy is "wasted" or used than is produced.

so YES< I do mean the sum total of energy in a system regarding the efficiency is less than 100%. now, in regard to Mills claims, PER THE PAPER and per some other papers published and listed on his site, by using his PV's and blacklight, he is essentially PRODUCING FAR MORE ENERGY than waste, use, running etc...This means that he is operating at well over 100% efficiency... PER HIS CLAIMS IN THE PAPER and the use of his hydrino mechanism as spelled out in his publications

this is why I say it is not possible. the claims made in publication/links ignores physics & thermodynamics

Perpetual energy machines in contrast claim to require NO energy to operate.

@ottowith regard to this last post... Yes, I fully understand but I think you misunderstand where I mean "perpetual motion" as well... any machine that is MORE THAN 100% efficient can utilse excess power to circulate back into the machine and thus maintain its production OR grow in production in a feedback loop: the more it makes, the more it grows making more, etc.

THIS is physically impossible, and where the perpetual motion comes in. This is ALSO a perpetual motion machine. NO NEED to provide fuel once its started

And yes, both claim outrageous physics unrelated to the norm

absolutely. And again, I will await EITHER the device of the alleged new physics OR a working prototype... and the explanation.

IF he succeeds, and it works as claimed, we are all the better off for it.

1. Potential chemical energy of source material is NOT accounted for.2. Weinberg confirms he ONLY observed, he did NOT take part in an Audit.3. It's KNOWN Aluminium reacts with Copper Oxides to produce:-"...brief bursts of high temperature" & that includes bright light.4. Reactants where NOT analysed afterwards5. Cycle was NOT repeated ie. 'fuel' was not reloaded with water.

Have 200meg most recent pdf from BLP site, claims hydrino energy released as heat (p13) - so why the preoccupation with PV then ?

The PDF does NOT touch on the Potential Chemical Energy of the Source material at all !

Looking through some of the other posts here & the 85 page 200meg BLP download .

BLP claim they release energy of the hydrogen atom & it becomes a hydrino which is unusable, so what happens to this hydrino - does it become dark matter as implied by Mill's interview ?

Did BLP EVER test for mass change - because if they did then that would be SIGNIFICANT !

Have looked through the BLP site - lot of vague language & tangential suggestions...

Why is such a simple & easily constructed experiment NOT performed then ?

Yet they WOULD have because they claim their "Sun-Cell" only consumes water, which means the mass of water goes in & energy comes out. Since they claim only H2 is converted to Hydrinos then they must have looked into what happens to those perky hydrinos:-

1.Do they disappear2.Is there a change in mass ,3. Does it change to different element.

Why is an analysis of the reactant products not done ?

After decades why are these SIMPLE validation experiments NOT done then ?

you are getting two conversations mixed. I never said the PV's were unproven... I said

You said

Blimey, that hot, so why bother with unproven PV

-So you trolling now too stump?

THIS is physically impossible, and where the perpetual motion comes in

No, perpetual motion is

"motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy."

- You can't redefine a term just because you can't admit it when you're wrong. Stump.

NO NEED to provide fuel once its started

I'll try this once again. The fuel in mills reactor is water, not the catalyst. If it runs out of water it stops. Is your problem the fact that it can be made to gather its own fuel? So does a cow. Is a cow a perpetual motion machine?

A Bussard ramjet will gather interstellar H2 as it travels. Does this make it a perpetual motion machine? No.

any machine that is MORE THAN 100% efficient can utilse excess power to circulate back into the machine

There is a term uses in fusion called Q.

"The fusion energy gain factor, usually expressed with the symbol Q, is the ratio of fusion power produced in a nuclear fusion reactor to the power required to maintain the plasma in steady state. The condition of Q = 1 is referred to as breakeven."

Fusion energy cannot be viable until it produces more energy than is required to RUN the reactor. Would you call such a reactor perpetual motion?

It's the same with the ecat and the sun cell. They won't be viable until they can produce more energy than it takes to RUN them.

A sub reactor has to produce more energy than it takes to RUN it in order to provide propulsion and run systems. Etc. Etc. Etc.

you are getting two conversations mixed. I never said the PV's were unproven

You said

Blimey, that hot, so why bother with unproven PV

-So you trolling now too stump?

@ottotry using your ctrl+f function... you will find Mike Massen said that, not I... and here I thought you were more sccurate than that, otto... that is a rookie mistake

- You can't redefine a term just because you can't admit it when you're wrong. Stump.

I am not redefining it. I am telling you what I learned in physics class. tell you what...do what I did- use my description and talk to a physicist... ask him if it is a perpetual motion machine... it's not like I haven't given you enough proof or means to prove it.

If you are scared to try, I can contact a professor and ask him to contact you directly... not a problem!

I'll try this once again. The fuel in mills reactor is water, not the catalyst. If it runs out of water it stops

yep. read that. heard that.but that is NOT what the papers/patent suggest, which, if you will read what I've been saying above, is the crux of my argument.

You are basing your statements on what he said. fine. believe him... I am basing my argument on what he published, which is the physical underpinning of his machine and his public comments... which is IMPOSSIBLE

Is your problem the fact that it can be made to gather its own fuel? So does a cow

is Mills device subject to cellular senescence?

You are fixating on a part of my comments, mixing MY comments with others, and then trying to argue a point...

like I said above re: your Mills device

And again, I will await EITHER the device of the alleged new physics OR a working prototype... and the explanation.

IF he succeeds, and it works as claimed, we are all the better off for it.

BY DEFINITION a perpetual motion machine: something that puts out more power than it receives

-And this

I am telling you what I learned in physics class.

Did you learn this in physics class as well?

"In thermodynamics, the term exothermic describes a process or reaction that releases energy from the system, usually in the form of heat, but also in a form of light (e.g. a spark, flame, or flash)...

"Simply stated, after an exothermic reaction, more energy has been released to the surroundings than was absorbed to initiate and maintain the reaction."

-Lets use the example of a house fire. You can relate yes? Once started a house will burn without any additional energy.

When the ecat runs out of fuel it stops, just like a house fire. So does the suncell. Doesnt matter how much energy they produce with this fuel. They will not run forever without fuel, which is what PM machines are supposed to do BY DEFINITION.

Perhaps. So is perpetual motion. But theyre clearly not the same thing if what mills and rossi are claiming is true. According to mills the hydrino is a lower energy state, and getting there releases an enormous, but FINITE, amount of energy. Same with rossis nickel powder. When theyre consumed they STOP.

Theyre exothermic like combustion or fission or fusion, and their power plants function in exactly the same way. They produce MORE energy than is required to initiate or maintain them.

Yet they WOULD have because they claim their "Sun-Cell" only consumes water, which means the mass of water goes in & energy comes out. Since they claim only H2 is converted to Hydrinos then they must have looked into what happens to those perky hydrinos:-

1.Do they disappear2.Is there a change in mass ,3. Does it change to different element.

Why is an analysis of the reactant products not done?

After decades why are these SIMPLE validation experiments NOT done then ?

Well these are pretty simple and obvious questions yes? What makes you think that you are the first person they would occur to??

And as you might expect, mills and those validators from cal tech, auburn, mit and elsewhere have addressed them and other such simple and obvious questions ad infinitum, in part because they would have occurred to them as well, dont you think?

And no Im not going to dig them up for you. Look them up for yourself. Im sure theyre in a FAQ somewhere. Try the interview and the pdf.

Well these are pretty simple and obvious questions yes? What makes you think that you are the first person they would occur to??

You really are intellectually dishonest:- I NEVER claimed to be the first to ask these questions. Why do you find the need to lie ?

TheGhostofOtto1923 went on

And as you might expect, mills and those validators from cal tech, auburn, mit and elsewhere have addressed them and other such simple and obvious questions ad infinitum, in part because they would have occurred to them as well, dont you think?

A directed search of the entire BLP site finds no reference to any of the questions I have asked which you claim are answered directly - where did you read them ?

TheGhostofOtto1923 forgets & gets immature

And no Im not going to dig them up for you. Look them up for yourself. Im sure theyre in a FAQ somewhere.

You claimed my questions where answered directly - did you check or are you lying.

so you are NOT going to ask a physicist? just SAY it... i don't care what you THINK you found, or about arguing semantics on this particular issue... and about the impossible quote, it is JUSTIFIED as Mills directly implies through his papers and patent (that was pulled) that he has created a perpetual motion machine. which I learned in physics class is impossible. again... you want to argue, but you are swapping between arguments and comments so fast that you are getting confused. I made a simple set of accusations about his publications, pulled patent, etc.my accusation is supported by physicsIF he has found NEW PHYSICS, then I await his discovery in writing as well as by producing a new device...this is not rocket surgery otto...SIMPLE PHYSICS

Perhaps. So is perpetual motion. But theyre clearly not the same thing if what mills and rossi are claiming is true

@ottowhich is WHY I SAID

And again, I will await EITHER the device of the alleged new physics OR a working prototype... and the explanation.IF he succeeds, and it works as claimed, we are all the better off for it

you seem to be getting ticked at mike or something and thinking I am arguing about your video's or whatever... I am arguing about the PHYSICS CLAIMS in the papers, the pulled patent and his device WHICH IS BASED UPON THE PUBLICATIONS AND PATENT! IF he found new physics, I can't wait to learn it! If not...

and no... I will likely not watch his video. I WILL, however, await for his descriptive analysis or publication describing the even with empirical data and review THAT.

You cant proclaim that something is impossible and then say you will await the evidence

@ ottoUNTIL YOU LEARN SOME PHYSICS, then you will continue to misunderstand my post!

I said that what they describe IN THEIR PAPERS AND IN THE PULLED PATENT is a perpetual motion device, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.I said that IF THEIR CURRENT MACHINE IS BASED UPON THESE PUBLICATIONS, then it is based upon a fallacy, and is impossible.

I am NOT stating their PV's or anything else is a lie, or whatever you are arguing about... I am stating that some of their publications violate the laws of physics.

IF THEY HAVE FOUND SOME NEW PHYSICS, then I await the NEW descriptions to be published so that I can read/understand it. and more power to them!IF they have created a device that works, then good

@ ottoUNTIL YOU LEARN SOME PHYSICS, then you will continue to misunderstand my post!

Why are you denigrating MY physics knowledge when it is mills and his team of validators from cal tech, auburn, and mit who are the ones selling the hydrino? You imply that you know more physics than me but you werent aware of exothermic reactions, COP or Q. Or perpetual motion.

BTW no, you dont know more physics than mills or his validators.

and no... I will likely not watch his video.

Of course not. Youve shown that you prefer making up your own mythology re mills, than actually learning what hes talking about. Makes it easier to call it perpetual motion when its clearly not.

Mills answers all the basic questions that you (and the greasy troll mike) asked above in his vids. Questions you implied that mills had not considered and that you had, because youre smarter than him or something.

Dr_toad

A Bussard ramjet will gather interstellar H2 as it travels. Does this make it a perpetual motion machine? No.

So what's your problem? You allow some physics to be right, but not other physics?

You denigrate your physics "knowledge" when you write this BS and expect anyone but a wide-eyed innocent to accept the word of a con man that he can get more energy out of a closed system than is put into it. On your say so?

That's just crazy stupid.

You have some specific criticism of what I said there or are you just enjoying blowing wind out your ass?

This genius thinks a 'directed search' will work on youtube vids and audio files and pdfs of powerpoint slides. What a fucking idiot.

As you should know TheGhostofOtto1923, proper validation reports are NOT youtube videos.

Validation reports are produced by an independent testing agency, on their letter-head & signed off by the person responsible.

Do you TheGhostofOtto1923 imagine a youtube video where people talk is more credible than a signed validation report ?

A 'directed' search is fairly exhaustive & having done these for years include combinatorial keyword variants however, as all good researchers when faced with narrow minded obtuse people who must be inefficient, I also read graphic PDF's as well as those that are text searchable along with power-points.

So TheGhostofOtto1923, why SHOULD youtube videos be more credible than a signed off report on a company letterhead ?

Since you claim to have seen them, please be efficient & link directly ?

I know that a perpetual motion machine is impossible, so in THIS respect I just happen to know MORE than Mills, considering his publications

Youve shown that you prefer making up your own mythology re mills, than actually learning what hes talking about

actually, this would be YOU, otto. Not I. Personally, I don't give a rat's a*s about Mills, just the science

Questions you implied that mills had not considered and that you had, because youre smarter than him or something

I IMPLY NOTHING. Mills PUBLISHED papers and has LINKS on his site stating something, I REFUTE IT WITH KNOWN PHYSICS as well as OTHER PHYSICISTS! and I don't watch the vid's because I PREFER to read and refute point by point

THIS is where you and I see things DIFFERENTLY, OTTOyou WANT it to be true. i get it. really... BUT...UNTIL YOU LEARN PHYSICS, you will continually fall for the scam that publications like his represent

Why are you denigrating MY physics knowledge when it is mills and his team of validators from cal tech, auburn, and mit who are the ones selling the hydrino? You imply that you know more physics than me but you werent aware of exothermic reactions, COP or Q. Or perpetual motion

1- I am not denigrating YOUR physics knowledge. just MILLS published work2- You've not shown where you comprehend the physics I was attempting to describe, therefore it is entirely possible that I DO know more physics... after that hydrino link, I saw something that was not right... I asked questions and did homework... YOU CHOSE to trust site propaganda...3- I was WELL aware of those things, you ASSUME that I was not.

Again... until you learn physics, this argument is circular and not worth the time. Just you arguing about why his propaganda is better than peer reviewed sources debunking him.

until there is something more relevant: stay stupid and pretend your not. it suits you

Mills and his validators from cal tech, auburn, and mit have a greater 'working knowledge' of quantum mechanics than you and they say something interesting is going on here. I tend to agree. But then I've seen the presentation. You?

The fact that they have not been able to test and falsify the concept of the hydrino indicates they do not know more about quantum mechanics than many on this thread. In fact, it would only take a first course in quantum mechanics to understand the ground state.

You are saying they didnt because you are assuming they cant. Why dont you watch or do you prefer spreading falsehoods (lies)?https://www.youtu...oMzm2HNE

I watched the video and read the reports. They are incompetent and, yes, it does not work because it can't. I am as confident in saying that as I would be in saying that someone claiming that he can make stones fall upward is wrong. Until I am shown how QM is a failed view of the world, I consider this to be a false claim and you to be naive and ignorant of QM.

Ah I think you are a liar. There are 2 of them and they just came out a little while ago.

Synopsis"Specific events included: ignition of H2O-based solid fuel in air and argon atmospheres, calorimetric energy balance determination under argon, EUV spectroscopy of the hydrogen transitions to hydrinos, theory, technical, engineering, and commercialization presentations, and live demonstrations of BlackLight's Third Generation SunCell with Photovoltaic Conversion of Light to Electricity. The main engineering aspects of the presentation were the complete system design and a unit that demonstrated those elements of the fast ignition and regeneration as well as optical distribution and photovoltaic conversion systems."

How can I denigrate your knowledge of physics when you haven't shown the capacity to comprehend the exchange above NOR have you been able to comprehend WHY/HOW mills hydrino papers & rejected/pulled patent constitutes a perpetual motion machine for the exact reasons I state above?again...per your own admonition modified slightly...

read the physics or stay stupid

keep your uninformed opinions to yourself

Like you do above? why not heed your own advice?again...per your own admonition modified slightly...

Sometimes when we want to learn something new we have to suffer just a little tiny bit no?

I can agree with this completely, but you misunderstand my motivations:When someone puts it in black and white, it is easier to follow for me and to learn. The video is nothing but a media distraction from the prior evidence posted on his site, some of which is as I stated above. no need to repeat it again, right?The video might talk about the issue I want, but until I can see it published where I can match it to known physics then I might as well watch MTV. I will not learn unless I am on site hands on or I can see the publication detailing the data

And I bet when you lose your car keys you prefer looking for them under the lamppost

I want add a comment in support of Ghost. While I've not been convinced of Miles Hydrino concept, I have read his papers, and it is consistent and detailed in it's development. Basically Miles claims that there are resonance quantum states that exist below the ground level state of hydrogen, and these sub ground state resonances level are stable for short periods. From that electron screening enhances fusion probability and the low momentum fusion tends to favor a byproduct of He4 branch of the fusion cycle. Miles has written a whole book on the processes and it's very detailed.

What is new is that Miles must now recognize he can only get sub ground state resonances aren't stable by QED. In a periodic metal cage of a lattice, resonance might be true, and H sub 0 becomes possible. I'll look more but I'm skeptical of Miles and BLP. My favorite theory on CF was put forth by Y.E, Kim of Purdue. That is a high temperature BEC of n=100 or less can form in hydrated metal lattices.

Well, I did get an answer to why cities look dimmer at night on the horizon:More and more streetlights, and I assume parking lights, etc., are becoming solar powered.

Less heat generated, less water released, less CO2. We don't think about all that power required to light our high-ways and byways, but most of it becomes heat. Solar means that the net gain is less than zero.

Before, of course, we were releasing all that heat from yesterday's sunshine, or coal. The net result was more heat than the sun produced by itself.

"Miles hydrino"The question is, "How cold can we make a room, passively?" Or is there some magical material that can generate energy just by existing?

I think if I put it that way we all know the answer.Lower quantum energy levels are just like deeper holes, you can only get energy out of them once.

Imagine if you will a substance that absorbs the collision of an air molecule and converts it to electricity. That electricity is shunted to a diode, before it goes back to the molecule. Sounds great doesn't it? Free air conditioning, with the plus of free power. It can't work. Sorry.

..resonance might be true, and H sub 0 becomes possible. I'll look more but I'm skeptical of Miles & BLP.

I've also been looking at this from the probabilistic point that any lower ground state won't last long, could or should be enough background noise to lift it to its 'normal' ground state after.

If thats the case then the " hydrino" may be a way to take heat from the background & channel it into a high density form to produce useful energy, although it appears to break a law of thermodynamics by taking from cold to produce hot, it doesnt have to as the efficiency will still be less than 100% but, is this what happens ?

Mills tech is progressing rapidly. He has a partial working prototype which he shows in the vids.

Really ? Claimed he had one in 1998 - where is it ?

TheGhostofOtto1923 admitted

The fact that they have not been able to test and falsify the concept of the hydrino indicates..

BLP have spent 16 years achieving nothing then !

TheGhostofOtto1923 links to 2hr+ video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxuoMzm2HNE

I have asked TheGhostofOtto1923 which he thinks is more credible; A proper report or a video, we see he far prefers a video, FFS how smart is otto then ?Video also does not address the stored potential chemical energy...

Otto try to understand; Mills claims catalysts reduce energy state of H to hydrino & has done since 1991. Which raises these questions:-

- No indication of chemical potential energy of reactants- What happens to hydrino afterwards ?- No mass measurements- No independent demo of re-fueling the 'solid fuel'

How hot. We have a lot of common ground between us, but CF is not in the mix. We are in agreement on a lot of things, but not CF. I have first hand experimental background with CF and have shown myself that it is not going to work. Don't get me wrong, I do respect your view because you bring science to the table. However, you and I will have to part ways on this particular view. I am sure we will have common views on other important issues such as climate change. But at this point, I don't have a common view on this.subject.

-And that's exactly what mills is claiming. His machine needs H2 in the form of water, which is its fuel, to keep on running. Hydrinos are vented to the atmosphere to infect troll brains and maybe fix them.

Miles claims that there are resonance quantum states that exist below the ground level state of hydrogen, and these sub ground state resonances level are stable for short periods. From that electron screening enhances fusion probability and the low momentum fusion tends to favor a byproduct of He4 branch of the fusion cycle

You made this all up. Hydrino formation, according to mills, is a purely chemical reaction. It has nothing to do with the nucleus. It is NOT LENR.

Are you saying the traditional ground state is unstable? Mills says the hydrino is an unrecognized ground state which is more stable than the traditional one.

- No indication of chemical potential energy of reactants- What happens to hydrino afterwards ?- No mass measurements- No independent demo of re-fueling the 'solid fuel'

These questions are all answered in the vid. Hey I know - why don't you get someone you know to watch it for you and tell you what it says? According to you this would constitute 'independent validation'.

Are you saying the traditional ground state is unstable? Mills says the hydrino is an unrecognized ground state which is more stable than the traditional one.

This is exactly why I dismissed the Hydrino theory. If you understand electron screening a sub_0 state would effectively neutralize the proton's charge. From that, fusion would be occurring all over. In a sense you would have the makings for a Widom-Larsen precursor of fusion. So if Miles hydrino is not LENR I wonder why not. Sorry @thermo, It's just I've been following the subject since 89, and as a physicist, I find it interesting. Certain aspects of the field I've never dismissed but I'm also a realist too and recognize the field needs to listen to criticisms, address them or acknowledge them. For example, I'm not a fan boy of Rossi nor of Miles. However, work like that of Mosier-Boss, Szpak, or M.Miles of SPARWAR are indicative of some real fundamental nuclear phenomena and should raise an eyebrow.

This is exactly why I dismissed the Hydrino theory. If you understand electron screening a sub_0 state would effectively neutralize the proton's charge

But according to mills it's not a sub_0 state. He says the designation is arbitrary.

From that, fusion would be occurring all over. In a sense you would have the makings for a Widom-Larsen precursor of fusion. So if Miles hydrino is not LENR I wonder why not.

Are you saying that muon-catalyzed fusion somehow involves a sub_0 state? One of my questions, which has occurred to many others, is that if mills electron is so much closer to the nucleus, why wouldn't this be easier to fuse in the same fashion? Which could make it very dangerous indeed.

I'll say this @Ghost, Resonances at the sub_0 as 1/n have been seen in He(1s2) that would correspond to a H Rydberg states of 1/n. So under the influence of specific environments like that found in some hydrated metals, maybe these H resonances levels could exist for a longer period than one would normally expect. As you know, Mills claims that there is a stable state of one(?) of these sub-resonances and can release lots of power when transitioning to ?.

To be honest, I don't get it. In quantum mechanics think of Psi as a DeBroglie wave (a matter wave) and a probability of finding the particle in Psi is linked to the Heisenberg UP. If you give up HUP, I suppose anything is possible. What I do see, is Mills does a lot of self referencing in his references. That's not very reassuring when your arguing that Feynman is wrong about QM!

If thats the case then the " hydrino" may be a way to take heat from the background & channel it into a high density form to produce useful energy, although it appears to break a law of thermodynamics by taking from cold to produce hot, it doesnt have to as the efficiency will still be less than 100% but, is this what happens ?

I've been calling Mills - Miles (unintentional).

@Mike, regardless of the sub_0 resonances, you have to obey the principles of conservation of energy so if somehow the electron under external influences looses enough to fall to a H 1/n sub_0 resonance something has to take up that energy. If the resonance is unstable and magically gains energy to reach ground state, yeah, that would certainly violate the thermo. But if the external influences take the energy away, they are linked, or entangled, so the energy would have to come back from the external source. Your right.

So still no stable hydrinos that I can imaging. Maybe Ghost can enlighten.

Thats dated 2005. He's made some refinements since then. His latest thoughts are in his presentation vids dated 7/21, and in the PDF of his PowerPoint which I linked above. They're on the 'what's new' section of his site. He rambles a bit and looks tired. He did better in his presentation a month ago.

I don't get it.

It's easy to get. He's throwing out QM. Lots of people would like to do this yes?But few have a nice lab and nice lab coats with their logo on the pockets.

He is either 1) a crackpot with an impressive retinue and a growing money pot or 2) a visionary with an impressive retinue and a growing money pot. Either way he's got apparati full of bangs and flashing lights which are getting louder and brighter with each demo. He promises sustained operation for the next one.

If the resonance is unstable and magically gains energy to reach ground state, yeah, that would certainly violate the thermo. But if the external influences take the energy away, they are linked, or entangled, so the energy would have to come back from the external source. Your right

I did. ACCORDING TO MILLS the classical ground state is not the ground state. There's something lower. Something lower. Something lower. Let me know if you need repeating.

experimental background with CF and have shown myself that it is not going to work

Did this involve blowing farts in the bathtub? Maybe the water was too hot. Did you try it in an argon atmosphere?

@ottoseveral reasons:1- failure to observe it historically (given that Hydrogen is likely the single most studied atom in existence)2- IF hydrino is THE ground state, why then would hydrogen normally sit in a state higher when no energy is applied (which would be the current known ground state that we KNOW exists)3- He has stated that using the hydrino state gives energy, considering he uses energy to PUT the hydrogen atom into the hydrino state, where then is the energy coming from? the dissolution of the atom? The jump back to normal ground?

Following the nonradiative energy transfer, further energy as characteristic continuum radiation having a short-wavelength cutoff of 2 13.6meV⋅ is released as the hydrino transitions to a final stable radius of (H)1/ 1m+ that of H.

I think you are misinformed. You know, I bet mills - being the intelligent and savvy guy that he is, and who has been fielding such OBVIOUS and rudimentary questions about his hydrino for years, has your answers for you.

So rather than me rooting out the info that you seek, and making it appear that I'm supporting mills hypothesis which I don't, why don't you look for yourself? I mean, it IS kind of rude of you to be asking others to do research for you don't you think?

- You may feel somewhat naked and vulnerable without the peanut gallery. And the people there WILL chastise you for asking questions you can answer for yourself, like what happens when an electron drops to a lower energy state.

You may remember from your physics classes that dropping to a lower energy state RELEASES energy

@ottoIf you would have READ what I posted, and the link... you would see that Mills himself published said that he PUTS ENERGY INTO the hydrogen atom to achieve the lower ground (hydrino) state, which, PER HIS OWN WORDS

further energy as characteristic continuum radiation having a short-wavelength cutoff of 2 13.6meV⋅ is released as the hydrino transitions to a final stable radius of (H)1/ 1m+ that of H

I think you are misinformed. You know, I bet mills - being the intelligent and savvy guy that he is, and who has been fielding such OBVIOUS and rudimentary questions about his hydrino for years, has your answers for you

Every CON has an answer, and can make it SOUND logical... but when you put it into black and white and really look into the situation, you come up with questions like the ones I asked above

You may feel somewhat naked and vulnerable without the peanut gallery

not likely

people there WILL chastise you for asking questions you can answer for yourself

I KNOW what happens, that was pretty much the POINT of my post, OttoAnd I don't want to hear his video and droning on about the physics when he can't get the publications to replicate his words, or findings...

I don't go hang out in churches and denigrate them for their beliefs, why would I goto an e-cat site and point out that their belief system does not obey the laws of physics and essentially their publications are saying they've created something that physically cannot exist?

THIS SITE, as in PO, however, is a SCIENCE site, and I know SOME posters actually like to discuss SCIENCE

So rather than me rooting out the info that you seek

likely you will find the same thing I did when you sent me to that site in Feb or so...and that same info is still thereand it still says the same thingand some of it is physically impossible as written and described...

I will await EITHER the device of the alleged new physics OR a working prototype... and the explanation.IF he succeeds, and it works as claimed, we are all the better off for it

If you would have READ what I posted, and the link... you would see that Mills himself published said that he PUTS ENERGY INTO the hydrogen atom to achieve the lower ground (hydrino) state, which, PER HIS OWN WORDS

No he doesn't. He uses a catalyst to achieve this.

I don't participate in pseudoscience

Then why are you bothering to participate in this discussion? If you had read through that thread you would have found many scientists participating there. Perhaps that is what you fear.

It makes me wonder WHY you are so adamant? do you have money invested in this?

I don't like it when people denigrate the work of others without knowing anything about it. I've spent this whole thread demonstrating how people here are an ignorant lynch mob. For instance

thus far he has promised this every year since WHAT? 1995 or so?

-is just not true. How would you feel if people were spreading bullshit lies about you, just because it was fashionable and they were a brainless mob?

I think you are misinformed. You know, I bet mills - being the intelligent and savvy guy that he is, and who has been fielding such OBVIOUS and rudimentary questions about his hydrino for years, has your answers for you.

So rather than me rooting out the info that you seek, and making it appear that I'm supporting mills hypothesis which I don't, why don't you look for yourself? I mean, it IS kind of rude of you to be asking others to do research for you don't you think?

Did you try the FAQ as I suggested?

Ghost: This reminds me of a boy scout campfire with kids sitting around telling terror stories about the guy with the hook. In this case, you whisper "e-cat" and elicit shudders. Yell "hydrino" and get screams from those near you. Look up and say "Electric Universe" and get nods and wise looks. Kids just don't know and it is in human nature to want to have unknowns. You just have to get the right campfire and this is not it.

Kids just don't know and it is in human nature to want to have unknowns. You just have to get the right campfire and this is not it

Kids have to learn to appreciate evidence. There is evidence that somethings going with the ecat and the suncell, at least enough to withold judgement. Why do you equate them with something that scared you as a child?

Kids just don't know and it is in human nature to want to have unknowns. You just have to get the right campfire and this is not it

Kids have to learn to appreciate evidence. There is evidence that somethings going with the ecat and the suncell, at least enough to withold judgement. Why do you equate them with something that scared you as a child?

You know the fun thing about science is that nature can really humble us. You can assume for example that the atmosphere of Saturn to be completely symmetrical, spherical and dull. Who would have predicted the Saturn Polar Hexagon.

Why a hexagon? Why not an octagon, a pentagon or other n sided shapes? Why any kind of 'gon' at all? Which is a huge point about science. It's our curiosity about observations that leads people to explain and reason what is occurring. We have a lot of questions so we have a lot of science. Sometimes in a debate on science it's just best to make your judgement and move along,

If @Ghost wants to champion Mills, good to him. Maybe Ghost will see something most folks don't. However, before you give up established physics you might want to know what Mills is arguing against; The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (del_P * del_x = hbar/2) or (del_E * del_t = hbar/2).

LOL, As with most articles appearing on (Physorg) ScienceX website, your posted articles proved to be of equally poor quality, unreliable as to data, interpretation, and citation of sources. Best described as a staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance having no basis in empirical science! Now all you can do is point to computer climate models showing observational evidence based science is wrong! Really? Sorry, I did not know scientific evidence had an expiration date! I don't suppose it would do any good to point out there is no empirical evidence to support your warming pseudo-science! So please feel free to provide that peer review paper, based on empirical evidence, showing CO2 to be causative of atmospheric warming? Then please provide the 'empirical evidence' showing any ocean acidification! You might want to look at this temperature chart from Bolder Paleoclimatology Data Centerhttp://snag.gy/BztF1.jpgScroll to the end

No Catastrophic sea level rise:http://www.regula...070-0127"The results from this analysis of western U. S. tide gauge data and comparison to other tide gauge and satellite altimetry data make it clear that there will be no alarming rise sea level in the 21st century and should not be more than that in the previous century and may be less."

No Catastrophic sea level rise:http://www.regula...070-0127"The results from this analysis of western U. S. tide gauge data and comparison to other tide gauge and satellite altimetry data make it clear that there will be no alarming rise sea level in the 21st century and should not be more than that in the previous century and may be less."

Your quote is from somewhere other than your link. And your link is just an uninformed personal opinion, not backed by any data.

You're not as bad as some trolls here but you're still a troll.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.